people seemed surprised by Obama's response,

I kept thinking "didn't Obama's spokesperson run a shadow 527 funded by the "Torch" who took down dean?"

surprised more people did n't think about this

He's a media darling now, and he doesn't want to become some kind of insurgent candidate who would draw the ire of the beltway journalists. So he's hiring insiders to help run his campaign.

Using the Lincoln bedroom talking point is really stupid, though. He should cut that out.

and effective as I think they are..  they actually will bring up this post Jerome - which is unknown outside of the blogosphere and do their crocodile tear ask Gibbs to resign...

create a fake wedge between deaniacs (who aren't supporting Hillary anyway) and Obama.. purely for MSM consumption

Maybe he's training Obama how to quit and accept defeat good. kerry did it.........even though 2 election workers were fired in Cleveland, Ohio and the Election Chief was fired.

Election Chief's name was Michael Vu. He claimed to be a Democrat, then we find out that he was actually a registered Republican imported from Utah.

Do your homework, people. Last 2 elections were lost by 2 guys that pretended to be Patriotic by not fighting for election integrity.

I never saw nor heard of that advertisement, but replace "Howard Dean" with "Barack Obama" and "George Bush" with "John McCain" and you suddenly have a compelling argument against Obama... I hope he fires that guy.

This shows a really serious problem for anyone running the type of "rise above the muck" campaign like Obama's. It sets a very, very high standard of conduct for the campaign. But, if you're Obama, you're building a campaign of professionals schooled and skilled in the same politics you are supposedly setting out to end. It's an inherent contradiction that I've never really seen overcome.

And, as another point, "I'm in to win" vs "I'm going to change our politics" is so fact-free and meta that it's bound to degenerate into quite nasty name calling. When you're basing campaigns on such subjective, amorphous foundations, the attacks are, almost by definition, personal and need to be rhetorically vicious to bite.

Look guys, we can all criticize every candidate's staffers, but I think this has got to stop. Our politics has become so inside-the-beltway, even in the blogosphere and we tend to live in a bubble where the staffs of all of these candidates are somehow important. Let's remember that most voters will never know who these staffers are and frankly, don't care. They care about where the candidate's heart is, and the candidate almost never vets staffers before hiring them, that's the job of the campaign manager. So let's judge candidates by their records, their views, and their rhetoric, not by the past experiences of their staffs.

The problem is that Obama frames his campaign as transformational. Hes been making teh rightt noises though we are still waiting for actual substance; Obama's been saying what we want to hear about Iraq, about campaign finance reform, about universal healthcare, etc. Obama's basic premise is that he can achieve transformative politics by embracing inclusive politics; he implicitly is arguing that the old politics of personal destruction and partisan polarization are the impediments to transformative change.

A more pragmatic observer might disagree by saying that the real impediment is that the partisan attacks were largely one-sided, and the better way to enact transforative change is to go on offense. That's a valid opinion but its counter to the animating thesis of Obama's campaign - and his career. (FWIW I don't buy into either narrative. I think transformative change comes from a single thing: the balls to make it happen, and screw you if you aren't aboard).

So, in a nutshell, Obama has someone on his team whose basic approach to politics is directly at odds with his own. Obama may realize this and not care; that woudl make me question his sincerity. Obama may simply not have been aware of this; that makes me question his leadership. If Obama intends to run a Section31 in the basement of his high-falutin' campaign, then he better take a look at himself in the mirror and ask himself what use are his principles if they are so easily set aside when there's Real Work to Get Done. And just what shape his transformative vision will take if built upon such foundations.

The right response to Hillary's attacks is not silence, nor is it scorched earth. A simple factual response - Geffen isnt our finance chair, he's a private citizen, go get your facts straight - would have been far more devastating.

Extremely insightful piece, thanks Jerome

I had also forgotten about Ford apoligizing and Clinton accepting that, convienient how Gibbs leaves that part out, and that's the key.

At first I was impressed by Obama's rapid and decisive response although disturbed by the reverse racism tone.  Your analysis gives useful insight into Obama's possible strategy.  
I like Obama, but sense that something will go wrong, not like there is some big skeleton in the closet or something but that a slugfest will ensue between Clinton and Obama, or Obama will be too cautious and stop his momentum, I don't know, I can't put my finger on it.

My first choice is still Edwards.  I just wish we didn't have to do this for a whole F'in year.

Thanks, Jerome.  I've been beating this drum over at DKos ever since the announcement of Obama's campaign team.  

They know that we will show up to vote when needed--kind of like African Americans--we are taken for granted and NOT pandered to.

This post reminds me of the netroots version of the Washington Post Ellen Tauscher piece the other day. At the end of the day - who gives a rat's ass who the spokesman happens to be. Gibbs earlier work was as an insider hitman. So was Wolfson's. That's the world we live in - most spokespeople are professional assholes.

Clinton and Obama speak for themselves with voters. I think voters are finally wising up to the use of surrogates and are focused on the candidates themselves and these insider wankers like Gibbs AND Wolfson don't amount to a bucket of spit in the long run.

If Gibbs steps in it - it's Obama's fault.
If Wolfson steps in it - it's Hillary Clinton's fault.
If Palmieri steps in it - it's Edwards fault.

But absent some disasterous statement I think it's cutting it far too fine to focus on frames by spokesman a year out from the first ballots.

C'mon!

Edwards is a nutjob hawk on Iran, who needs to be reigned in.
Obama has an a$$hold for a spokesman.
Vilsack is an anti-war opportunist now that he's no longer with the DLC.
Hillary is a dirtytrickster who won't admit that she was wrong on the war.
Kucinich can't win.
Gravel can't win.
No one wants Biden.

I haven't heard any complaints about Dodd and Richardson, except that no one really takes Dodd seriously.

So, what does that f'ing (I'm frustrated) leave the netroots? Are we going to cling to the hope that Richardson can win the nomination by sweeping some western states? Are we hoping that Clark is finally going to join the race? Or Gore, for that matter?

What I wanna know is does the Netroots have a perfect presidential candidate? Due respect to Jerome and Matt and Kos and Atrios (I really really like and respect you all) is there a candidate that is perfect, or are we going to have to decide that we're going to make the best of someone who is far from worst.

At the end of the day -- with or without Gibbs -- isn't Obama preferable to Hillary?  Isn't Edwards -- with his early missteps -- preferable to Hillary?

which major Democratic candidate's staff is plugged into the Dean machine?  

Any of them?  Is there any candidate who is on good terms with Dean?
.

I'm not convinced that Gibbs is all that bad. You fight for the side you're on when you're working a primary -- and last time around it got pretty nasty. if anything, I"m pleased that Obama is willing to hire the guy that would come after him in the primaries, and turn those big guns on Hillary, and then, the Republican nominee.

So much for a transformational presidential campaign, eh?

Obama missed the boat here...You can't expect that statements made by someone who is gathering or donating money on your behalf has nothing to do with you.  Further, he hasn't defined himself and this is once again noise that distracts people from focusing on his message.  I mean what have we been discussing about Obama:  There was the is he Black enough discussion, followed by the Madrassa (non) scandal, then the uppity issue(Salon), then is he too Black (SC), now there is the Obama's is fighting with Hillary thing.  This is what the MSM is covering about Obama, so this is what the average voter hears. I truly have no idea what Obama stands for, other than he was against the war and he is hopeful about the future.  That's a good start, but who is listening when all the other stuff surrounds it. What is he hopeful about, and how will he translate his hopefulness into concrete ideas. For better or worse, people think they KNOW Hillary. Finally, one of Hillary's thing is how the Right Wing always made personal attacks against her; if this continues, all she has to do is to compile a list of Gibbs and Obama ally "Right Wing" talking points along with similar comments from real right wingers,  put it in commercial and say the Republicans play the politics of personal destruction, apparently so does Obama.  The final take is that she is the victim of meanie men, who want to hurt her.  Go Hillary.

It is a question of internalizing Republican talking points. Any candidate who wins the Dem nomination by using Republican talking points sets us up for defeat in November. That is part of what happened to Kerry.

I'll be banned for this but this diary sounds like sour grapes.

Obama is fighting back for crying out loud.  Why would you be so upset with that?  Hilary still hasn't apologized to America for her Iraq vote.  What's up with that?  Is she, perish the thought, like Bu$hCo? (Can't think of a mistake she made?)  Anyway, keep up the good work.  I'll be reading.

Coincidentally, Chuck Todd of the Hotline made a point similar to this a few weeks ago. Obama's rhetoric is heavy with suggestions that he intends to run an unconventional Dean-style campaign, but if you look at the people who are his senior staffers and advisors they are very good, but very good at running very conventional top-down traditional campaigns. Todd predicts that "something will give" and it will happen "soon."

I think Jerome has a great point here, and I think that there is a tremendous need for Senator Obama to make sure that he has people doing rapid response who can communicate his message the way he would communicate himself.

IMO, this response would have been far better if he had used it as a teaching moment about the incredible triviality of the media, and particularly the trashy Maureen Dowd.

Rapid response has to have its meta themes ready, and not just reach for the first club at hand.

Look how both campaigns have been sucked into Maureen Dowd's game.

jerome- i think your response here is way off the mark- clinton's camp says some stupid stuff and obama's responds in a legitimate way and all of a sudden obama is on the bad side? i don't get it. if you want edwards to win just say it. you don't have to like obama but i think the readers deserve better justifications than this. come on, hillary acts like the nomination is already gift wrapped for her and you want obama to roll over. i don't get it.

J.S.